Silk Soymilk Bird Totally Looks Like Twitter Bird
Silk Soymilk Bird Totally Looks Like Twitter Bird
ยป Think you can do better? Make your own!
Pictures by: dunno source, twitter. Look-Alike by: borkborkbork via Totally Looks Like Builder
Create Your Look-Alikes: Combine two photos (the well-known and the look-alike) on our Look-Alike Builder. You can compare anything, from celebs to animals and objects.
« Previous Steve Wilkos Totally Looks Like Cal Ripken Jr. | Kim Jong Il Totally Looks Like Lady from Poltergeist Next »
» 81 comments
-
Recent Comments
puggynitro on This Kid Totally Looks Like A … brooke on Robert Pattinson Totally Looks… brooke on This Kid Totally Looks Like A … SKW on This Model Totally Looks Like… a splode on Dr. Frank-N-Furter Totally Loo… a splode on Dr. Frank-N-Furter Totally Loo… katie on Alice in Wonderland House Tota… ANON on Alice in Wonderland House Tota… j fizzle on This Model Totally Looks Like… Jennifer is hot on This Model Totally Looks Like… 
Cheezburger Network Blog-
Hmmm it seems that a lot of things totally look like the Twitter bird…
i wonder why twitter bird looks like a god damn bird
haha some common sense for a change.
Nice one Kulbir!
I think the silk bird came first. I know for certain that Silk is much older than Twitter, and any Soy drinkers confirm this?
While Silk may be older than Twitter, it does not necessarily mean this logo is. The comparison does have me intrigued, though. To the Google-mobile, Robin!
I see no such bird in evidence on a carton of Silk in our refrigerator. Wonder how it’s associated with Silk… The attached image doesn’t give the appearance of a silk-screened print from a carton, but it is a bit fuzzy.
i think u see the silk bird in the commercial.
The soy milk brand Silk has about ten years on Twitter.
ClipArt, maybe?
I second that
An epidemic?
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/04/did-the-shuttle/
Ah ha:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/03/twitter-designe/
This explains so much (read to the bottom).
Good find, CS. One of my favorite things about reading the comments is when people post relevant, interesting tidbits of information (that aren’t made up).
I like that, too, especially as it happens so infrequently. Well done, CardinalSmurf.
Do I get a cookie now?
There you go:
http://1000awesomethings.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cookies.jpg
nope
very true!
I second that.
If it was possible on this website, I’d uprank you with +1 insightful. Not often do you actually find useful comments on this site, but this surely is one! Great job!
nice job!
Homage.
What, milk is playing tribute to Twitter?
I don’t think so.
Tribute.
Like I said, this is old. I’ve seen this one at least one time before.
Getting the hipsters who use Twitter to drink soy milk and giving them something else to gloat to us about.
The logo is from an art site, I think the creator got $19 bucks for the twitter bird usage as it is non exclusive
Ah, the joys of stock. When will companies learn?
that “logo” is a stock piece of illustration (clip art) from istock.com that anyone can purchase and use for a few dollars.
Seriously, another Clipart TLL? Research this stuff first, people!
sniff sniff I smell a lawsuit
No, you don’t. It’s licensed stock art. Twitter doesn’t own the exclusive rights to it.
You don’t understand the difference between copyright and trademark. Anything that becomes strongly associated with a product or service is material for a trademark even if you don’t own a copyright in the material. Harley-Davidson claims a trademark on its motorcycle’s exhaust roar (personally I think they should be sued for noise pollution but that’s just me and my declining hearing).
sniff sniff i smell: neither of those are logos, silk and twitter both bought that same pic from istock photo. neither of them own the rights, the artist does!
So, is this an actual Silk logo or not? I can’t find any evidence of this bird being associated with Silk.
is this the actuall twitter bird or not?i cant find any evidence of this being associated with silk….you see how stupid you sound
Wow, they’re identical.
That’s because they ARE identical. Both are the same piece of stock art, licensed for a few dollars from a stock image site.
Congrats, Russell!
I’ve never seen this bird on a Silk carton… are we sure this is legit?
http://totallylookslike.com/2009/04/25/bird-on-tea-tree-shampoo-totally-looks-like-twitter-bird/ Anyone else remember this now?
for about 10 buck anyone can get this on istockphoto http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-3412146-eco-sing-song.php
Twitter and soy milk relley
are you people totally incapable of reading previous comments before you post?
My thoughts exactly!!!
Clearly, they cannot.
Does anyone seriously have that much time on their hands?
Lol get them running
someone posted this one before. The image used is a stock design that anyone can purchase the rights to use.
I used this bird myself in an advertisement I designed. I hope that was before twitter started using it. It was on iStockphoto so it probably cost $5.
I call shenanigans.
You’re an idiot.
i guess it is twitter time and must there some websites trying to be 2010 star . we will see
So, OK, apparently the bird has nothing to do with Silk soymilk, but no one’s mentioned the obvious: it doesn’t have anything to do with twitter anymore, either. They replaced it with a different bird.
So… a graphic that isn’t used on Silk looks like a graphic that isn’t used on Twitter. Amazing.
heh heh that actually isn’t the twitter bird anymore! i just went to twitter srsly go there!
lol oh yeah
Didn’t I just say that?
Re-read the entire thread and realize that all comments go unnoticed.
Yes, but people notice that they go unnoticed.
Looks like we have a lawsuit on our hands
learn to read comments.
I would like to formally introduce everyone on totallylookslike.com to the concept of stock art.
You didn’t even *try* to find out if anyone else introduced it (almost all of the comments said this.) Try pressing ctrl+f, then typing “stock” to see if someone (everyone) tried to say it already.
While you’re at it, press Alt-F4 for a more thorough search.
Stock art is something only nitwits would base their world wide branding on. It’s supposed to serve as a base for further work to be done on it, and Twitter apparently just grab-and-slapped this straight from either the Stock Art box…or maybe from Silk Soy’s logo. What idiots.
I noticed that on my Silk the other day….
Does soy milk taste like bird sh*t? I’ve never tried either, nor am I a twat (if that means a person who uses twitter). Now I must return to real life.
Could easilly be stock art especially the branch
What is Twitter and How Can I Use It?
You can’t. You aren’t allowed to.
They are exactly the same but with a different backdrop.
they look nothing alike
The only difference is the colour. The symbol’s so similar, it strikes me as possibly being totally ripped off!
The Silk Soy people could win an infringement lawsuit in a New York minute if they chose to take this to court – down to the little squiggle, the logo is exactly the same except for the colour. I wonder why they haven’t sued yet…
Psychaotic, the reason they haven’t sued yet is because they WOULD LOSE. Silk Soy is a food product. Twitter is a computer service. The trademarks don’t conflict AT ALL, because nobody is stupid enough to think that Twitter is a food product or that Silk Soy is a microblogging web site.
AHHH why don’t people read other people’s comments before posting!!!
They are the same images, they are NOT trademarked, they are both taken from this image from istockphoto (website that sells stock images)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-3412146-eco-sing-song.php
Neither of these companies own the rights to this image!!!!
READ COMMENTS BEFORE POSTING OR THE WORLD WILL END EVEN SOONER THAN WE THOUGHT!!!!
it must be doctored the tree is the exact same in both pics
actually i just looked it up and silk doesn’t use a bird only twitter does and it faces the other way
maybe the twitter bird had a side-job in a soy commercial!!
uh-oh..i sense a lawsuit coming…
Let me answer this for you. The reason why that bird looks like the twitter bird is because that bird is for sale as stock on istockphoto.com and was created by a guy named Simonox. Twitter actually only paid 10 bucks for the rights to use it and does not own any copyright to it. The only lawsuit that could come would be for anyone who has used that image without paying Simonox the 10 dollars. Which would be about 10 thousand media corporations that use that image thinking it is the twitter logo… when infact it is not.